Trust the experts

[flash2015]

RUSHED COVID-19 VACCINE APPROVAL: The FDA rushed approval of the COVID-19 vaccine in order to meet the Biden Administration’s arbitrary mandate timeline. Two leading FDA scientists warned their colleagues about the dangers of rushing the vaccine approval process and the likelihood of adverse events. They were ignored, and days later, the Biden Administration mandated the vaccine.

...unless I'm reading all of this wrong, Trump started the ball rolling and is being praised for saving lives... but how would those lives have been saved if the FDA had never approved the thing (for which Biden is being *blamed*?) Trump's deadline seems to have been December of 2020 and I'm not sure how that is any less arbitrary than what the Biden Administration would have proposed. Also, from what I can find, emergency use of the vaccine *was* authorized in December of 2020 (after Biden was elected but while Trump still held office). So why is Biden being blamed for rushing the FDA when it feels like Trump must have been doing the same thing to some degree?

There are two different levels of evidence required for an EUA and a full approval. The argument here is that the full approval process was subverted just so that Biden could impose mandates...which were of course completely wrong given that we knew by that time that the vaccine could not stop the spread.

The mandates were mostly imposed on young people that were at little risk from the virus.

[learnedSloth]

So Christ gave you practical and factual guidance about whether the COVID-19 vaccine was safe and effective?

I think it amounted to that NOT taking the jab felt like the right decision.

The Bible was a useful tool for knowing how best to manage social distancing during the various waves of the pandemic?

A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. -- Proverbs 22:3

God could have told policymakers whether their economic stimulus was at risk of overshooting and contributing to inflation?

2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
(Colossians 2)

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Yikes Sloth, that's kinda nuts.

[kingofthepirates]

Nahhhh not the raw Bible verses

[learnedSloth]

Yikes Sloth, that's kinda nuts.

I couldn't imagine that being unjabbed could still be that shocking. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[flash2015]

Yikes Sloth, that's kinda nuts.

I couldn't imagine that being unjabbed could still be that shocking. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am curious - have you had COVID?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Yikes Sloth, that's kinda nuts.

I couldn't imagine that being unjabbed could still be that shocking. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The shocking part is how you came to your decision. I'm not particularly fussed whether you got the shot, unless maybe you're very old.

[Fluminator]

Probably worth noting that, while many statements in the report strike me as fair and true, this is itself a political document written for political purposes and not really an objective summary of what went right/wrong during the pandemic.

Yeah I'm actually not pleased at all with Trump and think he's not who he says he is, so the parts rizzing Trump up I don't agree with.

[Fluminator]

https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/

Oof, in hindsight this seems so obvious but we really all were suckers during 2020/2021. The fact that nobody knew or predicted these things is embarrassing, but at least we can all learn for the next pandemic.

Perhaps the era of "trust the experts" leaves us too susceptible to manipulation. It's annoying because I don't want to waste time researching things that aren't my area of expertise, but what choice do we have now?

Oof, look at this gullible stooge believing whatever the House Oversight Committee feeds him.

To be honest, I kind of already knew all this pretty early on. I figured it out reasonably quick (not as quick as some people though). I was mostly joking when I said "no one knew" because people did know, they were just silenced.

[Fluminator]

It's annoying because I don't want to waste time researching things that aren't my area of expertise, but what choice do we have now?

Even so there are many things we can't control. Nevertheless we can behave wisely, if we consider the purpose it all serves, to wit, that men would come to salvation and inherit the everlasting life.

Seeing that it is the goal, I think that it is best to submit to God and seek his guidance.

God isn't real.

I'll make the 2024 annual religion thread where we can discuss this, it's not super relevant here.

[Fluminator]

Where do I start with my criticisms?
Fluminator creates this thread and:
Refers to a report on Covid from some political enquiry
He fails to provide some basic fkn information, such as, in which fkn nation, which fkn parliament?
Is Fluminator a Bible basher from.the USA? If so, would he please use a fkn Atlas to discover there are more countries than the USA & The Promised Land
Or is it a British parliamentary enquiry?

Don't expect me to look at some 500 page report Fluminator if you are too fkn lazy to provide us with a decent amount of information yourself.

You Fluminator had an agenda from.the start, to promote your religious beliefs with a bit of science bashing
Your claim that "we were all really suckers" might apply to you Fluminator but it does NOT FKN APPLY TO.ME!

Understand this simple fkn fact Fluminator, I am not a fkn cork brained clown
Your behaviours have me thinking that you might be that type of inferior specimen of the human primates.

Off you go Fluminator..
Explain to the readers, and explain to me the ways in which "I was really made a sucker".
Or accept that your generalised claim does not apply to me
Publicly acknowledge that I was not made a sucker by scientists, medical health professionals

Or fkn provide your evidence and reasoning, Without using Biblical sources please

.like you

Sir, this is a Wendy's...

[Fluminator]

Perhaps the era of "trust the experts" leaves us too susceptible to manipulation. It's annoying because I don't want to waste time researching things that aren't my area of expertise, but what choice do we have now?

On the one hand yes, perhaps. No one is perfect, and on some level everyone has an agenda. is this manipulation? depends on the context, but in some cases I wouldn't disagree. Some 'experts' definitely take and weaponize that credibility to their advantage and lie, often at the detriment of the public.

However, theres generally a higher chance of success and safety if we follow the experts; they may have an agenda but they KNOW stuff and have studied it, that's why they're experts in the first place (ex. I imagine you'd trust an 'expert' mechanic who went to school over some random person on the street without any credentials on how to fix your car)! A few bad people shouldn't ruin everything, and I don't think theres convincing evidence that the majority of experts are trying to intentionally mislead the public.

At the end of the day though, it really does come down to your final question. either you trust the experts, or you disprove them with your own (scientific and sound) research (so pseudo science bs that's been disproven like a hundred times over doesn't count). Sitting on your ass saying "nuh uh" doesn't do anything.

So now I really wanna know, what's your solution? (and respectfully, please don't come in spouting raw bible verses and religious quotes, if you do that, at least explain it. preferably we can avoid it and stick to science and proven fact yk?)

I think a big thing is we need to figure out how to change the profit motive. It's clear the only thing that matters to the pharmaceutical industries is making money. And unfortunately I don't think that's ever changing.

I think one possible solution (there are many issues to resolve) is to start penalizing them on mistakes made. If they make a drug they push on society that does a lot of damage to people, they need to be fined a large amount. Remove the profit incentive to release shoddily made drugs.

Currently they have successfully lobbied for much protection from lawsuits for this type of sloppiness and it's had a disastrous effect on their output.

[Fluminator]

Probably worth noting that, while many statements in the report strike me as fair and true, this is itself a political document written for political purposes and not really an objective summary of what went right/wrong during the pandemic.

Agreed, but I am all for more discussion here rather than less.

Even though COVID is now is years in the past, leftists are STILL trying to shutdown dissenting opinions. In October there was a symposium setup at Stamford to discuss lessons learned from the pandemic (including speakers like Jay Battacharya and Anders Tegnell from Sweden - note that Sweden over the pandemic had one of the lowest, if not the lowest excess death rate over all of Europe even though they didn't do lockdowns):

https://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/events/pandemic-policy-planning-future-assessing-past

Because the symposium had some speakers that may have strayed from the one narrative the media went absolutely ape-s***. For example, here is an absolutely unhinged article from the LA times. They went "all in" on the most partisan rant imaginable:

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-08-29/with-conference-on-pandemic-stanford-gives-platform-to-purveyors-of-misinformation-and-disinformation

Another one from the Nation. Many more like this. There were real attempts by activists to try and stop the symposium from happening at all:

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/stanford-covid-symposium-misinformation/

By all means analyze and criticize the arguments presented. Let's have these debates. But this idea that we shouldn't allow these people to speak because they stray from the one narrative is completely and utterly anti science and anti democratic.

It has been years now since the end of the pandemic. If we can't openly speak and reflect on it now, when can we do it?

I still have leftists telling me that covid started due to a bat across the street from a lab literally researching this type of disease. (and the lab being there was just a coincidence) These are smart people too, but they've been so conditioned to never question anything and to take a step back and just realize how ludicrous some stuff is. And when you have enough shouting down any dissenting opinion, the ones that do want to take a step back never do.

[Fluminator]

The reason to highlight the origin and nature of the House report is that it reads as exceptionally biased on several points, like the ones Doug Joe pointed out. The political right also had dogmas about the pandemic that were wrong or misleading and, if they had their way, the right would have been the ones to suppress or denigrate information that didn't serve their preferred narrative.

I am not saying otherwise. Though at this point in time it is very hard for the right to do this because of the massive institutional capture by activists on the left. This is where the progressive left gets most of its power. Activists can launder their propaganda through institutions and the media to give it undeserved credibility.

The only real point of power at the moment for the right to suppress speech is on Israel...where even the slightest criticism of Israel is called "antisemitic". It is actually very interesting how similar the rhetorical tactics are for the Israel topic from the right and various social issues on the left to stifle speech.

Yeah, the right isn't any better than the left, they just have less cultural power right now. (That might be changing though)
Israel is a fantastic example.

It's really just a people issue, not a party issue.

[Fluminator]

RUSHED COVID-19 VACCINE APPROVAL: The FDA rushed approval of the COVID-19 vaccine in order to meet the Biden Administration’s arbitrary mandate timeline. Two leading FDA scientists warned their colleagues about the dangers of rushing the vaccine approval process and the likelihood of adverse events. They were ignored, and days later, the Biden Administration mandated the vaccine.

...unless I'm reading all of this wrong, Trump started the ball rolling and is being praised for saving lives... but how would those lives have been saved if the FDA had never approved the thing (for which Biden is being *blamed*?) Trump's deadline seems to have been December of 2020 and I'm not sure how that is any less arbitrary than what the Biden Administration would have proposed. Also, from what I can find, emergency use of the vaccine *was* authorized in December of 2020 (after Biden was elected but while Trump still held office). So why is Biden being blamed for rushing the FDA when it feels like Trump must have been doing the same thing to some degree?

There are two different levels of evidence required for an EUA and a full approval. The argument here is that the full approval process was subverted just so that Biden could impose mandates...which were of course completely wrong given that we knew by that time that the vaccine could not stop the spread.

The mandates were mostly imposed on young people that were at little risk from the virus.

I remember in Alberta, they locked down the entire province a second time because we were running short on ICU beds. After a couple months, our health minister came out and said there was an issue with the reporting on available ICU beds and that there were actually a ton more available than originally thought and they corrected the numbers in hindsight. And the entire basis for the lockdown was entirely bunk.
The only issue is doctors and hospital staff were very actively trying to tell the government that their data was wrong but they were silenced.

There comes a point where the incorrect data that people used to make decisions has to be considered an intentional lie instead of an honest mistake in my opinion.

[Fluminator]

Yikes Sloth, that's kinda nuts.

I couldn't imagine that being unjabbed could still be that shocking. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am curious - have you had COVID?

I think the more interesting question right now is what percentage of people who have "long covid" were vaccinated or unvaccinated.

[kingofthepirates]

I think a big thing is we need to figure out how to change the profit motive. It's clear the only thing that matters to the pharmaceutical industries is making money. And unfortunately I don't think that's ever changing.

I think one possible solution (there are many issues to resolve) is to start penalizing them on mistakes made. If they make a drug they push on society that does a lot of damage to people, they need to be fined a large amount. Remove the profit incentive to release shoddily made drugs.

Currently they have successfully lobbied for much protection from lawsuits for this type of sloppiness and it's had a disastrous effect on their output.

Totally agree, the pharmaceutical industry does need a rework. Idt the covid vaccine has enough evidence to establish harm (haven’t read the house article, but a quick check online yields nothing substantial for or against the vaccine having disastrous side effects), and however harmful we must also consider the good these drugs/vaccines have done (cus generally the harm of vaccines or popular drugs is a small minority compared to the large chunk of people who benefitted from it). Both sides are important!

The last question btw was also more general than a “what do we do to fix this”; it’s also a “what will YOU do” (trust the experts? Do your own research? A combo of both?)

[kingofthepirates]

I think the more interesting question right now is what percentage of people who have "long covid" were vaccinated or unvaccinated.

I think it might be somewhat misleading to go just from this (ex. If one is traveling, they may be at higher risk, and also required to vaccinate. Those in remote places may never have even been exposed and also unvaccinated) but it’s an interesting thing nonetheless, especially taking these other factors into consideration.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Taking the profit out of pharmaceuticals is one of those ideas that sounds good until you think about it for a minute.

We got billions of doses of a novel and safe inoculation to COVID in large part because of the profit incentive of major manufacturers. Government money obviously helped to spur this along, but by and large the innovation and risk-taking needed to actually push forward the new jabs came from firms seeking to make money off it.

Another problem is that the profit incentive isn't the only possible perverse incentive. The less profit-driven vaccines developed by China and Russia were relatively low quality but were foist upon their populations for political reasons nonetheless.

Ultimately what we want is some independent and highly trusted health regulator, such that we can benefit from both private and public sector health innovation without being concerned we're being sold snake oil by the private sector, or being used guinea pigs by the public sector in order to fit some political agenda.

[CaptainFritz28]

I think that there is some middle ground to be had here. Being fined for releasing a product that harms people doesn't seem to be just taking away profit incentive... it seems like common sense. Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't just get paid because they exist, they should get paid when they make something that does what they say it's meant to do and helps people. If there are no consequences to mistakes (especially when those mistakes are made recklessly to cut corners and make more money) then the mistakes will never be rectified.

There must be profit incentive, yes. But there surely ought to still be consequences in pharma just like everywhere else, yes? I'm studying engineering. If an engineer designs something new, he probably does it for money. But if that thing hurts people, or fails to do its job and he lies about it, then the failure falls on him and he pays for his mistake. Why shouldn't that apply to healthcare?